T. N. Gandhi: Secularism And Politics

Jawaharlal Nehru, being the liberal bureaucrat that he was, was undoubtedly attracted towards socialism and few other Western philosophies, one of them being Secularism. Nehru was also never a religious person, he considered religious activities as naive since there is no science behind. But Gandhi, on the other hand, was a religious person, and one of the few who could link religion with politics. Until the Church was separated from the state, both religion and politics/state existed collectively as a whole even in South Asian countries: be it Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism. T. N. Madan in his essay Secularism in Its Place puts forward how both religion and politics existed together from the pre-historic times and the rise of Christianity …show more content…
Interestingly enough, the same word carries two different connotations, one for the West and one for the East. Secularism in the West is where the state doesn't interfere in religious activity of any sorts while people are free to follow any religion (dharma nirpekshta). The example of France where the government refrains itself from the matters of Church and limits it only to private lives gives us the text. While in the Indian context, it is Sarva Dharma Sambhava which is religious tolerance and equality (a substantial one) for all the religions; hence do we see special privileges offered to the minority communities. At the same time, one could argue that what we have in India is pseudo-secularism; the Shah Bano case for example. But also, although I cannot argue that India is not a secular state, I still cannot imagine a religion-powered state or vice-versa. If people think secularism is creating differences and thus communal violence, what is the situation of minority groups who are officially left-out by the state? Bhikkhu over chakkavatti, the Priest over the King, the Holy book over the Holy Sword are all examples of individual religions where the religious entity is given a superior position to the state/politics but are still an inseparable collective unit. But in India, which religious Holy book should be put above the State if …show more content…
Even the State, because of the pseudo-secular partial non-interference has catalyzed religious fundamentalism. Political parties have been trying to bring up secular slogans ever since but always end up not practicing them. How religion and caste are being used by political parties undermines the secularism deeply. Although we have added “secular” to the Preamble of our constitution, I think there's a huge confusion between what's Indian and what's Hindu in this country. Breaking coconuts, aarti, tilak etc., which Hindus associate with the most are often seen in the State/Government occasions as well. The state itself is contradicting the values of secularism. But it is also to be understood that many of such activities are merged into the culture and then the distinction between even more